Application of spherical pseudo-differential operators and spherical wavelets for numerical solutions of the fixed altimetry-gravimetry boundary value problem
Two possible solutions of the fixed AGBVP are discussed. Both are based on spherical wavelets generated by the Abel-Poisson kernel as a scale function. This ensures the harmonicity of spherical wavelets, which is necessary in the representation of the harmonic disturbing potential as n-level multiresolution analysis (MRA).
Using GPS/leveling data, the fixed AGBVP II could be transformed into a Neumann boundary value problem. After that, the solution of Neumann’s problem in terms of spherical wavelets given in Freeden and Schneider (1998) can be used. The approximation (low-pass filter) and detail coefficients (band-pass filter) in the spherical wavelet representation are spatially distributed and they can be used for establishing smoothness (compatibility) conditions along the coastline.
Another numerical solution of AGBVPs with compatibility conditions is possible with the combined use of spherical harmonics and spherical wavelets (Freeden and Windheuser, 1997). All boundary conditions could be presented as spherical pseudo-differential operators. In this case the application of compatibility conditions in terms of pseudo-differential operators becomes more straightforward. The compatibility conditions in Svensson (1988) are given in an implicit generalized form in terms of pseudodifferential operators as projections between Sobolev spaces. The compatibility conditions are presented in an explicit form.
KeywordsWeak Solution Compatibility Condition Pseudodifferential Operator Detail Coefficient Gravity Disturbance
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Eskin, G. (1981). Boundary value problems for elliptic pseudodifferential equations, Tran. of Mathematical Monographs, 52, American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
- Freeden, W. and Schreiner, F. (1995). New wavelet methods for approximating harmonic functions. In: Geodetic theory today (F. Sanso, ed.) International Association of Geodesy Symposia, 114, Springer, 112–121.Google Scholar
- Freeden, W. and Windheuser U. (1996). Spherical wavelet transform and its discretization, Adv. Comp. Math., 5, 5194.Google Scholar
- Freeden, W. and Windheuser, U. (1997). Combined spherical harmonic and wavelet expansion - A future concept in Earth’s gravitational determination, Appl.,Comp. Harm. Anal., 4, 1–37.Google Scholar
- Freeden, W. and Schneider, F. ( 1998. ) Wavelet approximation on closed surface and their application to boundary-value problems of potential theory, Math. Meth in Appl. Sciences, 21, 129–163.Google Scholar
- Freeden, W. Gervens, T. and Schreiner, M. (1998). Constructive approximation on the sphere, with applications to Geomathematics, Oxford Science Publications.Google Scholar
- Grebenitcharslcy, R. and Sideris, M.G. (2001a). Altimetrygravimetry boundary value problems with smoothness conditions in coastal regions, in Tziavos I. N. and Barzaghi R. (ed.) EGS 2001-G7 Session “Regional and local gravity field approximation”, Nice, France, 25–30 March, 2001, Bulletin of IGeS N. 13, special issue, 121132.Google Scholar
- Grebenitcharslcy. R. and Sideris, M.G. (2001b). A Comparison of Different Solution Methods for AltimetryGravimetry Boundary Value Problems Using Smoothing Conditions Along the Coastline, Presented at the 2001 International Association of Geodesy Scientific Assembly, Budapest, Hungary, September 2–7.Google Scholar
- Grebenitcharsky, R., Vergos, G.S., and Sideris, M.G. (2001). Combination of gravity, altimetry and GPS/Leveling data for the numerical solution of the altimetry-gravimetry boundary value problems, In: Adam J., Schwarz K.,P. (eds) Vistas for geodesy in the new millennium, IAG Scientific Assembly, Budapest, Hungary, September 2–7, 150–155.Google Scholar
- Grebenitcharsky R., M. G. Sideris (2002) Data smoothing along a mountainous coastline for use in altimetrygravimetry boundary value problem solutions, in “3rd Meeting of International Gravity and Geoid Commission, Tziavos (ed.), Gravity and Geoid 2002 - GG2002, 2003”, 223–228Google Scholar
- Holota, P. (1983a). The altimetry gravimetry boundary value problem I: linearization, Friedrich’s inequality. Boll Geod Sci Afini, 42, 14–32.Google Scholar
- Holota, P. (1983b). The altimetry gravimetry boundary value problem II: weak solution, V-ellipticity. Boll Geod Sci Afini, 42, 70–84.Google Scholar
- Holota, P. (2000). Variational methods in the recovery of the gravity field–Galerkin’s matrix for an ellipsoidal domain, in Sideris (ed.), Gravity, Geoid, and Geodynamics, 2000, IAG Symposia, Vol. 123, 277–283.Google Scholar
- Keller, W. (1996). On a scalar fixed altimetry-gravimetry boundary value problem, J. of Geod., vol 70, 459–469.Google Scholar
- Mallat, S. (1998). A wavelet tour of signal processing. Academic press, USA.Google Scholar
- Rektorys, K. (1977). Variational methods in mathematics, science and engineering. Dordecht-Holand/ Boston-USA.Google Scholar
- Sansò, F. (1993). Theory of geodetic B.V.P.s applied to the analysis of altimeter data. In: Rummel R, Sanso F. (eds) Satellite altimetry in geodesy and oceanography. Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, vol 50. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York.Google Scholar
- Simons, M., S.C. Solomon and B.H. Hager (1997) Localization of gravity and topography: constraints on the tectonics and mantle dynamics of Venus, Geophys. J. Int., 131, 24–44.Google Scholar
- Svensson, L. (1983b). Pseudodifferential operators–New Approach to the boundary problems of physical geodesy, Manuscr Geod, 8, 1–40.Google Scholar
- Svensson L (1988) Some remarks on the altimetrygravimetry problem. Manuscr Geod, 13, 63–74.Google Scholar